DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group 1 claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/15/25 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters “140” in Figure 1 and “1” in Figure 2 have both been used to designate the heating unit. There is no reference of part “1” in the specification that maps to the heating unit. It is taken to be an inadvertent labeling error. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In the abstract and paragraphs [0007]-[0009], [0054], [0065], and [0071] the Markush group in the last two lines recite zinc twice: “a group consisting of yttrium, zinc, zirconium, tungsten, zinc, and nickel.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: the Markush group in the last two lines recite zinc twice: “a group consisting of yttrium, zinc, zirconium, tungsten, zinc, and nickel.”
Claim 10 is objected to for lack of subscripts in “2MgO∙2Al2O3∙5SiO2.” It should be corrected to 2MgO∙2Al2O3∙5SiO2
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 5-7, the recitation of containing aluminum does not further limit claim 1 since claim 1 already requires aluminum.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kaneda et al. US Publication 2006/0192324 in view of Waldfried et al. US Publication 2002/0010426 and in further view of Zhou US 2012/0208142.
Regarding claims 1 and 2, Kaneda teaches a ceramic body comprising:
a) A body unit 2 (Figure 1) comprising a first surface (front of the honeycomb face) and a second surface opposite to the first surface, a ceramic sintered body ([0113]) comprising aluminum oxide, silica, and magnesium oxide ([0090]), and further comprising a plurality of channels extending from the first surface to the second surface ([0003]).
Kaneda does not teach a protective film comprising alumina and another metal selected from yttrium, zinc, zirconium, tungsten, and nickel.
However, Waldfried teaches a coating layer containing yttrium oxide and a metal oxide on a ceramic body (abstract, [0090]). The substrate comprises a similar composition including alumina and silica ([0090]). The coating is intended to provide temperature control and purity control in its environment ([0069]) and an enhanced chemical resistance to mixed halogen environments ([0019]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify Kaneda’s ceramic body by including a film coating comprising yttrium and a metal oxide as done in Waldfried. The modification would provide temperature control and purity control in its environment as well as providing chemical resistance to a mixed halogen environment. One having ordinary skill in the art would expect a reasonable amount of success from this modification because the substate material of Waldfried is similar in composition to the ceramic body of Kaneda.
Waldfried teaches that the metal oxide can include alumina ([0059]) however was not preferred over zinc oxide. Zhou teaches a ceramic heat retainer substrate that comprises an aluminum oxide coating that prevented heat loss and improved thermal efficiency ([0222]-[0223]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, in light of Waldfried and Zhou, to use a coating comprising yttrium oxide and alumina to provide a combined benefit: halogen resistance from yttrium oxide and thermal efficiency from alumina oxide.
Regarding claims 3 and 4, the aforementioned references do not explicitly disclose a weight of the yttrium is contained in the range of 25% to 100% (or 30% to 80% in claim 4) relative to a weight of the aluminum.
However, Waldfried teaches that the coating contains a high amount of yttrium oxide ([0008]) while Zhou teaches about 15% of alumina ([0114]). This implies that a greater amount of yttrium is preferred, thus suggesting toward higher amounts. It would further be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to arrive at the range of 25%-100% or 30% to 80% by routine experimentation.
Regarding claims 5, 6, and 7, the aforementioned does not explicitly teach the film further comprising zinc, zirconium, tungsten and nickel (claim 7). However, Waldfried discloses a mixed oxide that may include other oxide metals ([0009]). Zhou teaches a blend of oxides (Example 3 and 4). Thus, it would have been obvious to include other metal oxides in the protective film. Determining the optimized amount would have been obvious by routine experimentation.
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches the film can be about 0.03 mm thick (about 30 microns).
Regarding claim 9, Kaneda teaches the ceramic body comprises 42 to 56 parts of silica, 30 to 45 parts of alumina, and 12 to 16 parts of magnesium oxide ([0090]), thus forming an overlapping range with the claim.
Regarding claim 10, Kaneda teaches the ceramic body comprises cordierite crystals comprising 2MgO∙2Al2O3∙5SiO2 ([0090], [0136]).
Regarding claim 11, Kaneda teaches the body has a hexahedral structure with a rectangular cross section (Figure 1).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHARON PREGLER whose telephone number is (571)270-5051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, In Suk Bullock can be reached at (571) 272-5954. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHARON PREGLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1772